A Masterclass in Contradiction

The government has published its official response to the petition against the introduction of Digital IDs in the United Kingdom. Almost three million people signed that petition — an unmistakable signal that the public has deep concerns about this scheme.

The response, however, is a polished piece of double-speak that attempts to present a system of control as a system of empowerment. Let us be blunt: the government’s own words betray them. Their message is riddled with contradictions, evasions, and empty reassurances.

Their response is a clear two fingers to the public and a clear sign they have no intention to critical thinking.

“It will not be compulsory”… except when it is

The government insists the new Digital ID will be voluntary: “It will not be a criminal offence to not hold a digital ID and police will not be able to demand to see it as part of a stop and search.”

On the next page, however, they state that employers will be legally required to check the new ID for all right-to-work verifications. That means any person seeking employment in Britain will need one — or they will not be hired. The same logic will inevitably extend to landlords (right-to-rent checks), the benefits system, access to healthcare, travel, and eventually banking.

This is coercion by stealth. A Digital ID does not need to be technically compulsory if it becomes a de facto requirement for living a normal life.

“It is not a card”… but it functions as one

The response makes much of the fact that “this is not a card but a digital identity.” This is little more than wordplay. Whether the credential is plastic or an app, the reality is the same: a government-issued identity token that can be demanded at the point of service.

Dressing it up in different language does not change the fundamental nature of the system.

The Hidden Surveillance Layer

The government’s response is silent on this one critical issue: tracking. A card in your wallet cannot track you around the world, the moment a state-issued Digital ID sits as an app on a smartphone, location and usage tracking becomes technically trivial. Ministers may insist this won’t happen, but there is no logical reason why it wouldn’t. “Security” and “fraud prevention” will be the pretext. Once this infrastructure is embedded, mass population tracking moves from hypothetical to reality.

Such a system would directly breach the UK’s own Human Rights Act and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantee respect for private and family life. The European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly ruled that indiscriminate surveillance of an entire population is neither necessary nor proportionate. Yet this is the road the government is paving — and they are doing it without a single honest line in their public response.

“Putting more control in your hands”… while centralising power in theirs

The government claims the system will give people “more control over their own data.” In practice, the opposite is true. By consolidating fragmented systems into one master key, the state will gain unprecedented oversight of an individual’s life — employment, benefits, tax, medical records, and more.

The citizen’s “control” will be reduced to granting or denying access via a government app — while the government itself retains full control of the back-end systems, legislation, and enforcement.

The Estonia Distraction

As usual, Estonia is presented as the shining example: a digital society where bureaucracy has been streamlined and costs reduced. What the government omits is context. Estonia’s system was built after the Cold War, in a small nation facing constant pressure from Russia, with a culture of civic trust very different to Britain’s.

The UK, by contrast, has a long and damning record of data mismanagement: NHS records leaks, the Windrush scandal, the Horizon/Post Office debacle, COVID contract corruption, and countless government IT failures. The idea that Westminster will deliver a secure, abuse-proof national identity system is not just naïve — it is dangerous.

“Privacy and security will be central”… until they aren’t

We are told that “privacy and security will be central” and that the ID will be “designed in accordance with the highest security standards.” Such statements are meaningless. No system is unbreachable. Centralising sensitive data only increases the scale of the disaster when it is inevitably hacked, leaked, or misused.

We are also asked to trust that the government will not expand its use. History tells us otherwise. Powers introduced for one purpose are almost always broadened: surveillance laws, anti-terror measures, and emergency powers are prime examples.

The Real Agenda: Control

Strip away the spin, and the truth is clear. This is not about convenience. It is not about modernisation. It is about control.

• By embedding a Digital ID into the infrastructure of daily life, the state gains the ability to decide who may or may not access work, housing, healthcare, or travel.

• By centralising identity data, the state can expand monitoring and enforcement at will.

• By normalising such systems, the state can — in future — attach conditions, restrictions, or penalties invisibly, at the flick of a switch.

Once in place, this system cannot be undone. It will outlast governments, parliaments, and political parties. It will become a permanent architecture of surveillance and control.

Our Position

The British Democratic Alliance believes this policy represents a fundamental threat to liberty in the United Kingdom. We support modernisation and efficiency in public services — we support measures to prevent illegal migration, terrorism, fraud and illegal employment,  but not at the cost of freedom, privacy, and individual dignity. There are far better solutions to this problem, that the government refuses to consider them, tells us what we need to know – they are all about control, not personal freedom.

We call on Parliament to reject this proposal, and for the British people to recognise it for what it is: a step towards a society where every citizen’s life is monitored, verified, and ultimately controlled through a single government-controlled gateway.

Almost three million people have already spoken. The government’s dismissive response is a two-finger salute to democracy itself.

Our dystopia will not arrive with fanfare. It will arrive with soothing words about convenience, efficiency, and modernisation. The government’s response proves it has already begun.